WTC 7 - Why?

Originally posted by Essedarius
Am I missing something?

He only put up $120mil of his own money... I think he would be quite happy with even $1bil extra + rentla income + new complex in the end... but that is OPINION.

Things obviously have not been working out as smoothly as he thought they would or there would not be such protracted trials and appeals. again opinion.

He knew no matter what that the Port Authority would give him the money to rebuild in exchange for part of the property should he not be awarded enough. He would still make a killing off of the rent as tenants were guaranteed in this deal. This is fact. He will not own the Freedom Tower, the Port Authority will because the funding has been held up in court o they fronted the loot in exchange for the tower.

Sometimes you gamble and do not make as much as you thought you would.

Sometimes people make mistakes.

This, in my opinion, does not seem like the act of a brazenly bloodthirsty and greedy man who is about to orchestrate the slaughter of thousands for his financial gain.

This is another thing that crossed my mind - the complexity of the whole process. Either way, it seems like a lot of work to determine exactly how much money was lost or gained... and I fail to see how Silverstein, even if he did make a profit, could have possibly anticipated the outcome. If he is going to pull something this extreme, he'd have to be pretty sure that he would get something out of it.

Originally posted by Stiney
And how much did it cost to rebuild?

"It" has not been rebuilt.

Originally posted by Stiney
Based on what I read, it was 9 billion. Have you got anything that puts it lower than that?

Yes. $7b (NYP, MArch 14, 2006) financed by insurance, Larry's investors AND.... drum roll... the American Public via. "Liberty Bonds" and the Port Authority.

Originally posted by Stiney
Do you know that 4.6 billion is less than 9 billion?

Where is the profit?

Now, now... I have a B.S. in ME from U of M AA... I can count.

You don't know jack about INVESTING. The money is made back OVER TIME THROUGH LEASES, etc. AND he can still profit on the insurance ALONE and get the buildings depending on the outcome of the pending litigation.

You act like the buildings are not being built to GENERATE MONEY. THAT IS THEIR ONLY PURPOSE and the old onees SUCKED, WERE MONEY LOSERS, WHIT ELEPHANTS and would have cost a TON TO DECONSTRUCT. So, Larry got:

- Free Demolition (Think BILLIONS for Asbestos abatement + deconstruction)
- $5 Billion + pending suits
- He could only build new buildings IF the originals were "destroyed" (see above)
- NEW, SPANKING NEW buildings with GUARANTEED TENANTS from the Gov. & Port Authority

This has still not been addressed:

If it was planned then why was only some of it targeted? Where were the backups located? Why weren't they attacked as well? How did they know what was backed up and what wasn't - how did they know it would be worth it? Remember, if the story was all fabricated by the "inside jobbers", they can make it whatever they want. Why not add more planes to finish the job?

There was no way to determine what the loss would be. You don't know what to look for, but surely the criminals behind it would know, if this was their aim. The fact remains that a lot of it was backed up. Are you telling me that everything that was "incriminating" happened to be among what was not backed up? You haven't given any reason to believe that.

We have already established that some info was lost, which is not surprising. How could they be sure of what would be lost? The only way to be sure is to destroy all of it - and this was well within their capabilities if it was really an inside job. The "attack" could have been expanded. After all, it's their story which can be added to or taken away from as much as needed.

Or, was this just another "gamble"?

Not very convincing.

I thought this was your "smoking gun"?

Originally posted by Pootie
Things obviously have not been working out as smoothly as he thought they would or there would not be such protracted trials and appeals. again opinion.

But all these protracted trials and appeals could have been completely avoided by a document UNDER HIS CONTROL.

The size of his piece of the pie was COMPLETELY dependent upon his insurance agreements, and you think he would sign those documents with a "man I hope this works out" attitude.

Sorry...this action doesn't fit into the profile of a man willing to do what you are saying he did.

He would still make a killing off of the rent as tenants were guaranteed in this deal. This is fact.

Then a man willing to kill a ton of innocent people for $3 billion dollars left $3 billion dollars on the table because...why...? He didn't want to get GREEDY? Come on.

Sometimes you gamble and do not make as much as you thought you would.

It wasn't a gamble. If you are going to hold onto Silverstein as a player in your conspiracy, you have no choice but to explain why a man who puts the value of money over that of human life out and out decided NOT to give himself another few billion.

That's a fact.

the old onees SUCKED, WERE MONEY LOSERS, WHIT ELEPHANTS and would have cost a TON TO DECONSTRUCT.

That's a reason to build new ones, but not a reason to kill innocents and plant explosives. At the very least, assuming it was a conspiracy, it would have only been necessary to let it get damaged and burn. Why did it need to be completely demolished?

Originally posted by Stiney

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This one causes many problems

I really want to focus on motive in this thread, instead of debating whether there is evidence of explosives. I'll quickly post my thoughts on this, but let's not bring this way off-topic.

I must apologize! I skimmed once I got halfway in and missed the last sentence. I was by no means trying to red herring your thread. I'll start a target thread on the issue I raised here later from home where I have access to the trove of materials I have about it. I hope this didn't start an off topic line of discussion; havent seen everything else yet.

Originally posted by Essedarius
But all these protracted trials and appeals could have been completely avoided by a document UNDER HIS CONTROL.

The size of his piece of the pie was COMPLETELY dependent upon his insurance agreements, and you think he would sign those documents with a "man I hope this works out" attitude.

No... his pie also comes from new buildings that tenants want to occupy and that the Port Authority is guaranteeing him. Also, like I said, maybe he THOUGHT the insurance deals were a double dip lock and some dip stick messed up the paper work. Happens all the time.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Then a man willing to kill a ton of innocent people for $3 billion dollars left $3 billion dollars on the table because...why...? He didn't want to get GREEDY? Come on.

you don't think like a criminal at ALL. I live near Detroit... people will kill for TWENTY BUCKS worth of crack rocks and you don't think it will happen for $3billion + lifetime rental income? Don't be naive. People in all walks of lif LACK CONSCIENCE.

Originally posted by Essedarius
It wasn't a gamble. If you are going to hold onto Silverstein as a player in your conspiracy, you have no choice but to explain why a man who puts the value of money over that of human life out and out decided NOT to give himself another few billion.

Quite simply and as I have stated three times now, someone probably messed up the contracts, Larry thought the contracts were BULLETPROOF and they weren't. OOPS. Big effing oops, but the courts CAN STILL AWARD HIM MORE MONEY... It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

That's a fact.

If you are going to hold onto Silverstein as a player in your conspiracy, you have no choice but to explain why a man who puts the value of money over that of human life out and out decided NOT to give himself another few billion.

Exactly. You can't pass this off as a gamble. Not the money gains, and not the destruction of evidence. If it's an inside job, the players basically have total control over the outcomes. If one method isn't sure to work, they'd use another.

Pootie, you're suggesting Silverstein has the government on his side, yes?

The government.

On his side.

Why is there a margin for error?

Originally posted by Stiney
That's a reason to build new ones, but not a reason to kill innocents and plant explosives. At the very least, assuming it was a conspiracy, it would have only been necessary to let it get damaged and burn. Why did it need to be completely demolished?

Burning would probably be repaired... total demolition would be the only guarantee.

Don't get me wrong. I do NOT THINK Larry's $$$ was why the towers were chosen, it was just CONVENIENT for everyone involved.

Enough with the "killing innocents"... there a PLENTY of people out there that would "press the button" for < $1mil cash. Sad, but true. Don't be naive.

Don't be naive. People in all walks of lif LACK CONSCIENCE.

So? I think you missed the point.

Originally posted by Stiney
Exactly. You can't pass this off as a gamble. Not the money gains, and not the destruction of evidence. If it's an inside job, the players basically have total control over the outcomes. If one method isn't sure to work, they'd use another.

Pootie, you're suggesting Silverstein has the government on his side, yes?

The government.

On his side.

Why is there a margin for error?

Assuming Silverstein was used as a pawn, why the heck would the planners give a poop if he ever got paid? It is not like he is going to sell himself out to sell them out.

I do not think the planners are on anyones side... Larry was convenient, greedy and willing. The perfect mark, the perfect tool.

He was ONE court ruling away from doubling his money... ONE. All he needs to do is win ONE appeal. You two are acting like poor Larry lost out. He has not and will not.

Originally posted by Pootie
Burning would probably be repaired... total demolition would be the only guarantee.

Don't get me wrong. I do NOT THINK Larry's $$$ was why the towers were chosen, it was just CONVENIENT for everyone involved.

Oh, okay. Then stay focused. Why, exactly, was building 7 chosen? To destroy the evidence, yes?

Let's see.

"Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

Paper-intensive.

Paper.

What happens to paper in fire, Pootie?

Does it get "repaired"?

Didn't think so.

So let me ask again - why was the building demolished?

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Stiney]

Originally posted by Stiney
but the issue is how they compare in fires to concrete structures.

The comparison is that for the strength of the steel to equal the strength of the concrete, the modulus of elasticity (E) has to be reduced to 15%. I'm not sure what temperature would do this but I know it's more than 600C (50% strength loss).

Griff states that the weight it can carry is directly proportional to how well it would perform in a fire. There are absolutely no calculations backing that up, it does not seem rational to me,

What I meant is that the strength of the steel would have to be taken down to 15% to equal the original strength of concrete. Now, if the concrete is subjected to the same temperature as the steel (IMO) it would fail just as easily. I could be wrong of course.

and it directly contradicts what we observe in multiple examples including the Windsor building in Madrid that supposedly proves the opposite.

It only contradicts it if you go by that the official story is correct. If it was a CD, then my comparison fits nicely into what everyone has been saying. That protected steel skyscrapers don't collapse due to fire. Remember we are talking about WTC 7 which did not get hit by a plane and therefore had it's fire resistance intact.

I would be interested to see Griff's response to this:

"[Concrete] can endure very high temperatures from fire for a long time without loss of structural integrity," says Alfred G. Gerosa, president, Concrete Alliance Inc., New York City.

Concrete requires no additional fireproofing treatments to meet stringent fire codes, and performs well during both natural and manmade disasters.

Concrete vs. Steel

That's true, but steel that is fireproofed is a different story.

Please explain to me why there is fireproof insulation added to steel if it already handles fire better than concrete, which does not require fireproofing.

Fireproofing is a safety issue. Go back to NIST and see if unfireproofed columns buckle in the given temperatures. They didn't.

Or explain to me how this article is inherently flawed and how you are more qualified on the matter than the people cited in it, Griff.

Where did I say it's inherently wrong? I was comparing a steel column to a concrete column. BTW, we got onto this discussion from you posting the pic of a building that lost 1 column and said that it's structural integrity was compromised. I showed a picture of the Murrah Building with one column intact and you said that I can't compare steel to concrete. In both instances fire was not involved. So, for you to turn this discussion around and introduce fire, is disingeneous. Because, the start of my comparison was with no fire. I was comparing the picture posted with the Murrah Building. None of these structures had fire (at least that wasn't put out).

Again, I am not denying that steel structures would generally be stronger in general when it comes to holding up weight, but if the steel structure can be easily warped by fire, the calculations referring to its "strength" would have to change drastically. Are you going to deny that calculations would need to be adjusted accordingly once certain disasters take place, like fire?

The only thing to change would be the modulus of elasticity. In fire, E goes down. So, the only thing needed to adjust is E. Hence why it would take a fire to reduce E to the same as concrete.

Also, this comparison is with the temperature affecting steel while the concrete is not heated.

[edit on 4/25/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 4/25/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Stiney
So let me ask again - why was the building demolished?

I have given you MANY, MANY reasons above.

Many individuals, corporations and government agencies stood to become "very happy" should this building be destroyed...

So you pick one or open your mind and see that objectives may have been purposely aligned.

Originally posted by Stiney
Paper-intensive.
Paper.
What happens to paper in fire, Pootie?
Does it get "repaired"?

SOME of it burns and the rest is recovered. Have you ever visited a house that burned? Rarely do all the contents burn, as a matter of fact, most of the contents usually only suffer smoke damage as the fire is put out by the fire dept. The only way to guarantee total loss was demolition and quick disposal.

If there was only a fire, the sprinklers, halon, firemen, whatever, would have put it out. With the "attacks" though they claim there was no water for fire suppression and no firefighters to fight the fire.

On any other day, a fire would have been quickly put out with very little loss. If you do not believe me, argu with the FDNY about it.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie
…like I said, maybe he THOUGHT the insurance deals were a double dip lock and some dip stick messed up the paper work. Happens all the time.

Puh-LEASE.

So if I respond to all the structural engineering hoo-hah on this thread with “the engineer thought it would withstand plane impacts and jet fuel but I guess he was a dipstick. Happens all the time.” You would accept that answer? Be honest please.

you don't think like a criminal at ALL.

…

Thank you?

people will kill for TWENTY BUCKS worth of crack rocks…

Of course. But would they kill someone for twenty bucks of crack rocks, but leave another 20 bucks worth of crack rocks laying on the ground next to the victim? (The correct answer is NO, no they wouldn’t.)

OOPS. Big effing oops…

Again, you would taunt me like CRAZY if I fell back on that argument.
You clearly have a good imagination…you can do better.

but the courts CAN STILL AWARD HIM MORE MONEY... It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

Wrong. On the insurance bound using Silverstein’s WilProp forms, the companies have already paid out because the contract clearly states...the contract specifically chosen by Silverstein... that “a series of occurrences” would be treated as ONE occurrence.

He’s already lost that money and he has no legal recourse to recoup it.

Oops? Come on.

Hey can you help me out…what’s the opposite of smoking gun?

I don't think Stiney or anyone who really can't grasp that ANYONE can be a terrorist will ever be satisfied with any answer about why WT7 came down. There is no telling what was in that building, as you nor I have ever been inside of it. I do know that all the debris was packed up on dump trucks and hauled away... for all I know they were also trying to transport something out.

United we stand, divided we fall. Look at what the 'terrorists' are doing to us, arguing over who they even are. The way they have us arguing over this trivial non-sense is how the terrorists are winning today. They are making us weak from the inside.


[edit on 25-4-2007 by Spoodily]

SOME of it burns and the rest is recovered.

Yet you have the same problem in a demolition. Not everything was destroyed. Why not? Why were the other backup locations ignored? And if we assume that demolition was enough, then why isn't fire? How much do you suppose would be recovered in a fire? If demolishing the building was devastating, a fire would be damaging, to say the least. Why was it worth the risk of demolition, if the demolition was so "obvious"?

And how can you compare this to a house fire?? I think you're forgetting the most important part: It's an inside job. It is THEIR fire, not nature's. They could have had complete control over how much fire there was, and which parts of the building it was in. If the aim is to destroy PAPER, then controlled demolition is not necessary, or feasible. It's too risky. Why the heck would they do that? Controlled fire makes a lot more sense, and is a lot easier to cover up.

So you're saying that arguing over who the terrorists are is "trivial" and the terrorists are winning because of it.

...

That's assuming they are who you think they are.

I could also say that you arguing that the government did it is making us weak and shifting focus away from the real terrorists.

So how is it "trivial" to try to figure out who the actual terrorists are? If you're wrong, it means you're needlessly attacking your government and supporting terrorists.

That is simply a fact, if you are wrong.

And you're telling me it's a waste of time to discuss because it "divides" us. What shallow reasoning.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Stiney]

I still can't determine which side you are arguing for. Are you arguing for 'inside job' or 'Muslim extremists' as the source behind 9-11? I think you owe me an apology for insinuating I support terrorists. I support the American government and NOT the TERRORISTS that are infiltrating it.

Originally posted by Stiney
So you're saying that arguing over who the terrorists are is "trivial" and the terrorists are winning because of it.

...

That's assuming they are who you think they are.

I could also say that you arguing that the government did it is making us weak and shifting focus away from the real terrorists.

So how is it "trivial" to try to figure out who the actual terrorists are? If you're wrong, it means you're needlessly attacking your government and supporting terrorists.

That is simply a fact, if you are wrong.

And you're telling me it's a waste of time to discuss because it "divides" us. What shallow reasoning.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Stiney]

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Spoodily]